Today we have a guest post. Jacob D. (JD) grew up in the church in an area he affectionately terms “Zion Lite.” He served a mission in a country with police with semi-automatic weaponry and weird fatty foods, went to BYU, did more than enough graduate school, and still goes to church. Look around this Sunday, he may be sitting down the bench from you, possibly wearing fantastic socks. He could really use a friend there.
Recently, President Oaks and Elder Kevin Hathaway of the Seventy spoke at a meeting with parents in Blackfoot, Idaho. Elder Hathaway made comments that are worth discussion.
“I just wanted to add a few comments on gender and gender identification,” Hathaway said. “While we recognize what LGBT means, we do not use those labels when we talk about people. We don’t say, for example, that person is gay. We say that person struggles with same gender attraction.”
Hathaway continued,
“Why is that even important? It’s important because whenever we place a label or allow a label to be placed upon us then we also…— a lot of times by default — accept the lifestyle that comes with that.”
“It’s interesting that when they use the terms “coming out” as a way to express freedom…it’s actually a way to enter in to a prison of sorts, where you have to live a certain lifestyle. So I think that as we talk to our children about gender, about identity, we are very careful in what words we use, and how we explain them.”
Elder Hathaway then stated something I hadn’t heard a leader mention before, “There are people who struggle with same-gender attraction, just like there are people who struggle with opposite-gender attraction. I struggle with that. I am attracted to my wife and I don’t mean that to be sarcastic in any way. I mean that all of us have, with these amazing bodies that God has given us, struggles and temptations. And God can bless a person who struggles with same-gender attraction in the same way that he can bless someone who struggles with being attracted to people of the opposite sex and not expressing it in the right way.”
On my mission, during daily companionship study, we often joked about the manual’s overuse of the phrase “less effective” in describing less than optimal teaching methods and approaches. In the study manuals, usually a silly and very obvious “less effective” method was paired with a “more effective” one. Here are a few points for discussion, presented in a similar fashion:
- Less Effective: Determining terms that are appropriate for a group that is not you.
- More Effective: Allowing people to use the terms with which they feel most comfortable.
Some faithful members of the church will call themselves LGBT, which self-labeling is perfectly fine. (No, calling oneself “gay” does not mean that one is already dating dudes.)[1] An individual calling themselves “SSA/SGA” (which self-labeling is perfectly fine) also does not inherently mean that they are celibate. There are those, celibate and not, who won’t label themselves at all. While I understand the very human need to want labels, labeling others so that we can feel more comfortable or define their existence based on our terms is likely not the best approach.
- Less Effective: Reducing the experiences of LGBTQ individuals
- More Effective: Recognizing that the feelings of a gay individual toward the same sex are no different than the feelings of a straight person to their opposite-sex spouse/partner.
The terms SSA/SGA minimizes the broad spectrum of emotions, feelings, and desires of an individual to the word “attraction.” Unfortunately, within the church, it usually is further minimized to simply mean physical attraction and sex.
- Less Effective: Stating that coming out is a prison
- More Effective: Allowing someone to choose on whether or not to come out
The decision on whether or not to come out is important. Not because individuals “have to live a certain lifestyle” as Elder Hathaway supposed, but because “visibility matters” to use a common phrase. It wasn’t until close individuals came out that people realized that gay people actually are not a faceless boogeyman, but neighbors, cousins, friends at church, sisters, sons, daughters, and brothers. The published books of faithful members who have come out have also been very instructive to the church.
I appreciate Elder Hathaway’s attempts to bring it into his sphere of understanding, relating “the gay” to his feelings toward his wife. That is so important! He reports that he “suffers from opposite-sex attraction” and is “attracted to his wife.” The difference is…he has a wife. He has a wife with whom he has built a family. President Oaks has been sealed to two wives, one with whom he raised a family, the other became his companion after being single for two years. They aren’t required to disavow their own relationship and family in order to be fully accepted in their faith community. A lack of recognition in these statements consistently makes leaders of the church come across as tone-deaf. [2]
I know that Elder Hathaway is not in the Quorum of the Twelve or the First Presidency. But this approach has been a consistent theme of President Oaks for decades. It also is odd considering our stated willingness in other official media to allow individuals the freedom of their own labels, as well as our recent strong desire to determine OUR own label.
- Am I missing something on the importance of labels? Is Elder Hathaway correct?
- Or on the other hand, can we learn to stop worrying (about this) and love?
Discuss.
_________________________________________________________________
- A very funny movie, but not anyone’s best. How does one even WASH that robe?
- Elder Bednar, ultimately likening it to the challenge of being very attractive
- A Double Whammy for Labeling! MORMON and GAY
Wheat & Tares 
As a gay Mormon (yes, double label, self-assigned and proud of it!), I definitely have my opinions about straight men (or women) attempting to define the experience of the LGBTQ community. I bet we would be called down in a minute if we tried to define theirs. I will be interested in reading the comments on this post.
Elder Hathaway’s comments are full of contradictions. He rejects labels and then labels. He claims that labeling causes certain expectations of a choices, but fails to see how the same thing applies to categories he ‘accepts.’ His ‘struggling with being attracted to his wife’ comment is offensive to his wife and to everyone he is ‘mocking’ with this comments (though he doesn’t realize it).
This is no wisdom or learning. It is people being deluded, misguided, bigoted, ignorant, lacking in imagination, and dangerous. His words pass no muster or rigor or persuasion. Failing grade on all fronts. Should not have passed middle school writing classes with this sort of logic. Yet, here we are. Claiming such statements are full of truth and light. Truly the church leadership’s intellectual moorings are in a sad state.
Was it a performance for President Oaks?
Is he ignorant of the Church’s internet (and perhaps other) uses of the label “gay”? Or is this “we do not use those labels when we talk about people” merely a use of the “royal we”?
Great post. I think Elder Hathaway is well meaning but ignorant. It’s so surprising to me how often I have the thought “wow, you really don’t get it” when listening to some of our leaders attempt to discuss LGBT issues. It’s a huge problem and they do so much harm. And there are so many resources available for them to learn! It’s baffling and sad.
I agree that it’s hard to ask for people to stop calling us Mormons and then not call other people what they prefer to be called. I also think there is a lot more boot licking in the Church than we care to admit. I think this is also an example of someone who thought they could score some big points with Pres. Oaks and it seems to have backfired. It’s also possible Oaks asked him to say this and take the heat and they realized this was an untenable position and started using LGBT in conference.
I’ve never been a Stake Pres/High Councilor (or a bishop for that matter) but if I was, I think it would be highly advantageous to bring in every so often representatives from organisations that do advocacy for these groups.
Listen to a shot bit on what it’s truly like and then have a question and answer session.
When my dad was on the high council back in the late 90’s they had some teenage pregnancy mom’s come in and help them understand what it was like for them and my dad told me how impactful it was. As a high school teacher, he was already in tune with what many of these girls are going through but to see the impact on the rest of the council was noticeable.
This is a veiled way of calling being gay or lesbian a disorder. Gays self-identify as gay. The leading experts on sexuality identify them as gay. It is a legitimate category. LDS leaders are engaging in a form of denial which is a soft form of homophobia.
Two L’s, a, b and e. 🙂
I don’t get what he was trying to say about his being attracted to his wife. I read it to mean that he was attracted to his wife in someway that was inappropriate/a struggle/sinful (in the same way he sees LGBTQ attractions as inappropriate/a struggle/sinful). Which is kind of a horrible thing to tag onto his wife in public though, so hopefully I am wrong…
I think his bit about struggling with attraction to his wife was a really bad attempt at humor. Here’s the thing, though. That kind of thing just sounds creepy and weird coming from a dude, and even worse coming from an old, married dude. Yes, as a 14 year old girl I “struggled with opposite sex attraction” in the way all kids struggle with their crushes: “Do I like him? Does he like me? How can I find out if he likes me without revealing that I like him? Is he cute or just cute today? Is he above or below my level? Will my friends tease me? Is he dumb? Does he already have a girlfriend? How can I make this happen?” That’s the way young crushes go. But this is a grown middle age+ married man joking that he “struggles” because he’s attracted to his wife. That’s . . . neither funny nor cute nor particularly accurate.
It’s also a failed parallel. Gay people coming of age doubtless have all the same “struggles” I did at 14, but add to that “Is s/he also gay? Is s/he also out of the closet? Are his/her parents supportive? Are my peers supportive of gay people?” and of course the big one if the kid is Mormon: “Will my Church reject me? Will my parents? Will I lose all my friends and family and support network??” That’s a lot of weight to put on top of the “struggle” heterosexual kids feel.
Beyond that, though, can’t we just be respectful enough to call people the labels they choose? We are certainly obsessed with the labels we want (having Jesus Christ in our name) and not at all respectful of the labels others choose. I do agree that labels are powerful, but when we deliberately use a label that someone doesn’t accept and we reject the one they choose, we are erasing their identity and saying we know better than they do about their own lived experience. It appears from other recent talks that Oaks is claiming that sexual orientation is a choice and that it can change with enough personal focus and commitment. These are ideas at odds with both science and lived experience.
That makes sense. It did come off as creepy and weird, so much so that I hesitated to even post out of genuine sympathy toward his wife. (I’d be horrified if my hubby said such a thing in public.).
I just finished listening to Hidden Brains’ latest podcast on Outrage. (The POX even gets a background mention!) The thing I walked with away is that the more our leaders create outrage on this topic within their audience, the more they deepen the conviction of those that already support SSM, etc. The opposite of what is likely intended.
There are quotes from Elder Hathaway in the post that do not come from the linked article at the Idaho State Journal. Is there a transcript around somewhere? I’m guessing this is one of those “please don’t take notes” presentations that leaders do, so it’s a little odd that it was covered, with quotations, by the paper.
As for the post and the article — LDS leaders do place an awful lot of weight on vocabulary and terminology. As if carefully avoiding the term “Mormon” in LDS discourse and using the full name of the Church at every opportunity will make millions of non-LDS suddenly sit up and say, “Oh, I guess they really are Christians! Why didn’t they tell us earlier?” As if avoiding the term “gay” and instead using something like “regular human beings deserving of our kindness and respect but who, for some reason, struggle with same-sex attraction, sort of like how heterosexual humans struggle with opposite-sex attraction but totally different because gays can never get married, well they can get legally married but we won’t recognize that within the Church and will instead excommunicate them” will somehow solve the problem.
There is a positive spin one can place on this odd way of talking about the reality of gays: a person should not be defined by their sexuality to the exclusion of other roles and commitments in their life. But if that’s really how LDS leaders look at the situation, they ought to walk the talk and acknowledge that a gay person can be a good Mormon, a fine Primary teacher, a good father or mother, a good neighbor, and so forth. Instead, they put annotations on records and, in general, push openly gay Mormons to the sidelines of church activity if not right out the back door. Leadership doesn’t want to label LDS Mormons as “gay” (you’re so much more than that, they say) but they treat them as gay and only gay (don’t go pretending you’re a regular person and a regular Mormon, their actions say).
Thank you Elder Hathaway. I need to come out too. I also struggle with sexual attraction. And I also struggle with eating, breathing, sleeping and staying awake during general conference.
My experience with labels has been that it doesn’t box me in, it’s just a shorthand way of describing an aspect of my identity and a way to find a community of similar people. Last year, after a long period of questioning and research, I added a new label to a part of my identity I had struggled to understand for years: I am asexual. Taking on the label didn’t change who I was. It didn’t force me to “accept the lifestyle that comes with that.” It did give me relief to finally not feel like there was something broken about me. It gave me relief to finally not feel alone in my experiences. I think one think Elder Hathaway doesn’t understand is that, for many people, labels don’t define who they are, they just provide comfort and community.
I do wonder, sometimes, how people like Hathaway or Oaks would describe asexuality without using the term itself. Would I be a person who “struggles with lack of opposite-sex attraction?” What a mouthful.
Thank you, Dave B! Your post summed up EXACTLY what I have experienced as a gay Mormon. I left the church many years ago (had my name removed from the records) when even the mention of being gay was taboo and the loneliness and feelings of despair were overwhelming. I absolutely felt I did not belong. Fast forward to 2015 and I had a ‘spiritual re-awakening’ that lead me back to the church. I went through two incredibly difficult years of working toward re-baptism. Although the church says from the highest pulpit to come back and that we are welcomed, I have never experienced something so difficult as the paperwork and red tape required to get re-baptized and to get my temple blessings restored. It was awful! Many, many times I nearly gave up due to that alone. The church does not make it easy for a person to return once they have had their name removed from the records. And I didn’t even have major sins to resolve!!! This time around I was completely honest about my sexual orientation…to everyone. And guess what….you’re right. I was pushed to the sidelines and eventually out the back door. My local congregation couldn’t seem to handle an openly gay member in their midst. It seemed to confuse and irritate them, especially since I didn’t hide it. It’s almost as though I was welcomed as long as I kept my mouth shut and sat in the back pew, neither of which was going to happen. This time, however, my name will remain on the records of the church and I’ll wait patiently to see what happens.
I don’t struggle with opposite-sex attraction. I enjoy it. Bizarre parallel he is trying to draw here.
I’m not sure exactly where this fits, but although I like the parallel between labeling people “Mormon” and labeling people “gay,” I think it fails in an important way: GAs don’t like the label “Mormon” because of how it makes *other people* think about the person being labeled, whereas they don’t like the label ‘gay” because of how it makes the labeled person think about *themselves*. I think President Oaks has said at least a couple of times that I’ve read that he doesn’t want people labeling themselves by their sins, and whether or not he then talked about homosexuality, it was pretty clear what he was getting at.
But I feel like this almost makes it worse. It’s like GAs are saying that they don’t want people calling themselves “gay” because they think that, with enough shaming, such people can be convinced that they’re straight after all. To me, it seems like just a signal that, for all they might have softened their rhetoric on sexual orientation not being a sin, deep down, GAs pretty much still believe that it’s chosen and that it’s changeable. (Although I know I’m painting GAs with a broad brush here: Oaks and Nelson and Bednar probably believe this. Holland and Uchtdorf probably don’t.)
I initially thought that E Hathaway was stating that his “struggle with opposite-sex attraction” meant that he had difficulty with keeping his sexual thoughts about women in general in check. Then he brought up his wife, so I was wondering if he was suggesting that he “lusted” after her, as others mentioned above.
If it’s the former, then I can understand his desire to express a struggle that some would view as similar, and I was going to be impressed with his vocal admission of vulnerability (props to Brene Brown). Gay or straight, strong physiological drives make it difficult for many people to appropriately direct and express sexuality in thoughts and even in actions. If it’s the latter, then it’s a very “Ned Flanders” expression. In an episode of The Simpsons, in one of is incessant calls to Reverend Lovejoy, Ned literally expresses concern that he is lusting after his wife.
To me though, his comment feels like a speaker, in an attempt to find similarity with his audience, lamenting his problems with overeating to an audience in the middle of a famine. Both problems deal with food, but…wow.
I echo the suggestion of others that more regular interaction LGBTQ individuals and leadership is necessary to minimize these statements. However, perhaps this is more along the lines of “the sin of certainty.” Humans crave certainty, and particularly within the church on difficult issues such as this one, a consistent pattern has been a simplification of “the gay” to philosophies that the general authorities can understand. Previous comparisons and reductions have included the effects of sin (masturbation, pornography and other similar vices causing it), bad parenting (absentee father and not following church principles in the home), confusion of gender roles (gender atypical behaviors, styles, and clothing) and this comparison to “opposite sex attraction.” This simplification is not a church specific thing but a human specific one – amplified by the certainty of our absolute “knowledge” of the Plan of Salvation. However, our knowledge has shown to be faulty in numerous areas in over a century of our history.
@ Andy
I really appreciate that suggestion – regular interaction with LGBTQ individuals is invaluable. I know that the Affirmation annual conference has a leadership session, where they invite Bishops, Stake Presidents, and above to come listen and learn.
@ Wondering:
I also was confused at E Hathaway’s statement, in light of the mormonandgay website that explicitly encourages the allowing of individuals to use labels they prefer. While the awareness of that website has definitely increased, I still hear numerous instances of both ignorance of its existence, and (to a smaller extent), denial that it is an official church website. Perhaps in rural areas such as this one (SE/E Idaho), old church philosophies die harder. All the more reason to work on effective teaching/presentation of good and accurate messages.
In my area of medicine (radiology), I often run into people who have very antiquated and demonstrably false concerns about radiation. (I partially blame the Marvel Cinematic Universe.) If they are obstinately certain of their rightness, it’s easy for my “natural man” to want to Hulk them out of existence with my knowledge of data and facts and figures. Research has consistently shown that with emotional beliefs, presentation of opposing data has the opposite effect, increasing the certainty of the other individual in their position. Stories have been shown to be more powerful way to help people move beyond “the traditions of their fathers.” Again, this supports Andy’s suggestion to have regular interaction with groups on the margins. I strongly believe that regular discussions and hearing of stories can help turn bad policies aimed at a nebulous other into a helpful practical application for our brother.
@ Dave B, 5:16 PM
I know personally that the E Hathaway quotes not included in the newspaper are 100% accurate, so any discussion boils down to his intent and meaning in saying them.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that an individual should not be “defined by their sexuality to the exclusion of other roles and commitments in their life.” I feel that we shouldn’t be defined by sexuality any more than a straight person is defined by THEIR sexuality. Similarly to your following thoughts, I bristle when individuals who often proclaim this idea the loudest sometimes get significantly uncomfortable when a gay individual mentions dating, partners, kids, family weekend activities. While sexuality is a small part, it still is a significant part of an individual’s life – as evidenced by their partner and family. If a straight person who has many family pictures at work, talks about his wife, kids, and weekend activities regularly finds that a similar (respectful) expression by a gay person is them “wanting to be defined by their sexuality” then I have a concern.
There is an EXCELLENT Key & Peele clip on YouTube titled “Office Homophobe” that exhibits this concept perfectly, from a novel humorous point of view. (Warning: Adult Language and sexual references are present within the clip.) Hence my inclusion of the the phrase “respectful expression.”
I fully support respectful equity of treatment in public places such as work, etc, and sadly, I think some other individuals want the privilege of expressing their heterosexual family life to the exclusion of all others.
It seems that a common church response to solving structural or doctrinal issues is to simply relabel things.
Problem: we don’t understand the eternal destiny of God’s gay children.
Solution: we will say homosexual orientation is temporary and say that those who are oriented that way are experiencing same sex attraction.
Problem: we have given women a singular role and purpose to the exclusion of all other aspects of their divine identity. Yet not all women actual experience motherhood in this life.
Solution: we will label all girls, young women, and women as mothers regardless of the word’s meaning, so all women can be content.
Problem: men and women think that “the priesthood” just means men. They don’t understand that just because men are the ultimate or primary decision-makers , presiders, and key holders, that men should not be the only gender associated with priesthood.
Solution: we’ll say men aren’t the priesthood
Problem: because of the above, some members think the bishopric and elders quorum are central and more important to our church than auxiliary organizations.
Solution: we’ll stop calling these auxiliaries and call them organizations.
And so on. All of the issues mentioned have deeper roots and need more comprehensive understanding and changes in order to be addressed. But it easier to relabel than to truly change. However, I do understand the power of labels and changing language to influence the way people think about things. A culture needs both structural and language changes. And it’s ok to say we don’t know, but we’re trying to find out.
| “While we recognize what LGBT means, we do not use those labels when we talk about people. We don’t say, for example, that person is gay. We say that person struggles with same gender attraction. Why is that even important? It’s important because whenever we place a label or allow a label to be placed upon us then we also…— a lot of times by default — accept the lifestyle that comes with that.”
Hathaway supplants one label with another. He labels people that self identify as gay as people that “struggle” with same-gender attraction. He also says that to accept a label is to accept the lifestyle that comes with it.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into this, but to accept Hathaway’s label is to accept that being a homosexual should be a struggle. His word choice (struggle) frames same-gender attraction as something negative that must be overcome. I recognize that he also talked about people that struggle with opposite-gender attraction but that feels like a back pedal. If everyone struggles with sexual attraction, why do leaders feel the need to draw a line of distinction between same and opposite gender attraction? If the issue is sexual attraction in general, talk about sexual attraction in general terms. Their approach is to single out gays and then make similar, vague references to straight people to make the message appear less unequal.
There is power in a label. Is it a struggle because we truly struggle with an issue we want to overcome or is it a struggle only because someone has conditioned us to view it as a struggle? Imagine if the label being preached from the pulpit was “a person that enjoys same-gender attraction” or “a person that enjoys opposite-gender attraction” or the more general “a person that enjoys sexual attraction” or even “a person that enjoys being asexual”.
For a while I bought into the church’s SSA label and my “struggling” with homosexuality. For me it was quite liberating when I could finally say I’m gay. I felt no need to conform to anyone else’s definition of being gay, but it gave me a context for defining my own gayness. I don’t feel that coming out with me in any kind of prison. I felt no constraint to conform to anyone else’s expectations. That was the life I was leaving, conforming to the church’s expectations of what it meant to be a Mormon. Now I am finding unsurpassed joy in just being me however I want to define myself. That’s the goal anyway, isn’t it? Men are that they might have joy.